Bethabara9, I wish I knew David Talbott, but unfortunately I know him probably as much as you do. His work is obviously influenced by Velikovsky, and so is Thornhill's work. Thornhill said that he was inspired by Velikovsky from the start and got a few degrees, but when they refused to teach certain subject areas so students could better understand the science they were learning and point out logical errors, he pursued a career outside of the mainstream.

One of the founding statements, if you may (Dave Talbott said this), of the Thunderbolts project is that they will never rely on the mainstream for ANYTHING. They will always conduct original research and experimentation, unless a mainstream statement is empirically backed up already. So you can see how the mainstream and the Electric Universe models are different - the mainstream is on almost a purely theoretical basis, while the EU is based upon observation, experimentation, sound empirically proven principles. This is why the EU model has made accurate predictions of things that surprise scientists when they discover them later (like the reaction of Comet Tempel 1 to the impact of Deep Impact's projectile with the electrical discharges and the constancy of emissions relative stability afterward).

Off topic, perhaps, but I am going to ask Thornhill for clarification on the neutrino aether. I still don't understand if the electromagnetic radiation (ripples) begin mechanically or electrically.

I have no problem with the electric universe theory in general as I think that something along these lines may well explain many of the features we see on other planets/Moon/etc. However, I feel that sometimes the same theory is used to explain things which may not be due to massive electrical or plasma discharges, but may be due to warring aliens or other phenomena that we dont understand yet. I cannot see Youtube videos from where I am.

So I am not really with the mainstream, but I'm not really with this site much either, if only because it is not being logical and scientific enough. You needn't base any theory off of assumptions. The reason the people on this site see aliens and life and carvings all over the place on here is partially due to complete assumptions on their part, and partially due to complete assumptions on the part of the scientists struggling to interpret data contradictory to their own ideas on 'how it ought to work'. Yes, it is difficult to place you in either camp. The scientific point you make has been addressed before and expecting us, a bunch of un-scientific people, to suddenly become scientific - because they are discussing remote planets - is very unlikely and borders on wishful-thinking.

What you dont seem to realise is that our whole life is based on assumptions built up by experiences started when we were children. We assume all kinds of things because in our experience, it is so. As normal humans, we dont go around basing our assumptions on measuring things like scientists do, and so when we see a pattern repeated in many photographs we are told come from other worlds, we have to assume that these other worlds fit into our assumptions of reality on this world - Earth. Until we know otherwise, we have to do this.

We don't know a lot of the things we pretend we do. The mainstream doesn't understand how living things really work, they don't understand basic physics due to a narrow basis, and whatever phenomena they can't explain at all with their flawed models are deemed 'imaginary', 'impossible', 'the ideas of crackpots', 'conspiracy' whenever they don't agree with it, When you say these kind of things, I wonder whether you are actually working in science yourself or whether you have picked up science by osmosis from some work that you do. In the post above you say that you have picked up scientific methods from the people at Thunderbolts which suggests to me that you may not actually be scientifically trained but that you may be similar to the rest of us but with an interest in scientific method. The small problem with that is that many people look to scientists to help them make sense out of the world we live in and similar to doctors and lawyers, these professions hold some perceived authority.

Of course, on this forum, your opinion is as good as anyone else's - as are your hypotheses. However, it is good to know if a forum member is a scientist due to the reasons I gave above, but when you say that intuitive answers may often be the correct ones, to me, it does not sound like a scientist speaking because most of them deny intuition has any place at all in scientific investigations.

If there are any projects members of this site should get involved in, it's gotta be the Thunderbolts Project and the Disclosure Project, in my honest opinion. I dont know much about the Thunderbolts Project, however, I have kind-of been following the Disclosure Project and it seems to me that Herr Doktor is all wind and no substance. His project to bring free energy to mankind is, like all the rest, never going to appear due to oil influences still being too powerful.

Furthermore, asking people to donate to buy the plans for this energy machine (which was the last thing I was reading about 4? years ago), is in my opinion a huge con. I feel that any free energy project MUST be kept constantly updated into the public domain to stop oil influences closing it down. After all, free energy would make such a huge impact on all nations of the world that I think anyone trying to keep it commercial is bound to fail by being put out of business.

Free energy is too important to be kept by one organisation and would solve many of the worlds hunger and water-shortage problems too.

Disclosure itself will come in time but possibly the key lies in the continuing control of the media by those who do not want it or are not ready for it. There is so much more to disclosure that it is not just a "Yeah, well officially now aliens exist", but the implications run through many many other issues as well, not least being religion and space exploration. Fundementally, our society would never be the same again and could we handle such a massive societal shift in consciousness? I doubt it.

1)I like the thunder bolts web site and the electric universe and I strongly agree with much of thier findings. I believe it explains much.

Yes, and it actually can be used to make a case for the UFO phenomenon backed up by way more than just some credible people talking, for those on this forum who would like to do so.

It's also fundamental to our understanding of our place in the Universe and our future. I know Wal Thornhil, one of the big leaders of the movement, and he and the people at the Thunderbolts site have taught me a lot about being scientific and objective. Surprisingly (or not), the right answer usually seems to be intuitively agreeable.

We don't know a lot of the things we pretend we do. The mainstream doesn't understand how living things really work, they don't understand basic physics due to a narrow basis, and whatever phenomena they can't explain at all with their flawed models are deemed 'imaginary', 'impossible', 'the ideas of crackpots', 'conspiracy' whenever they don't agree with it, etcetera.

So I am not really with the mainstream, but I'm not really with this site much either, if only because it is not being logical and scientific enough. You needn't base any theory off of assumptions. The reason the people on this site see aliens and life and carvings all over the place on here is partially due to complete assumptions on their part, and partially due to complete assumptions on the part of the scientists struggling to interpret data contradictory to their own ideas on 'how it ought to work'. Now I will let a bit out that there certainly is stuff kept under-wraps about the UFO phenomenon, and not all images get released, and some do get modified, but the data necessary about what you would see on a regular basis is NOT censored. In other words, the Earth you see from space is the Earth you get in most photographs, and the Moon's surface you see in photos is the same surface you see in reality (off by a bit of color).

If there are any projects members of this site should get involved in, it's gotta be the Thunderbolts Project and the Disclosure Project, in my honest opinion.

Most electrical craters form during the formation of a rocky body through equatorial ejection from a gas giant planet. I realise what I am about to suggest is pure speculation, but this pattern could easily be weapon pulses as a result of a war. The dark smudge may be the unfortunate being who got spattered onto the surface of Mars. My imagination (and after all, that is what we are using here to form these hypostheses) can just see the scene from Star Wars where the spacecraft gets chased with the guy behind shooting at the guy in front.

How do we know that this quoted sentence is what happens? Do you have references? Have we observed this happening in the universe? Making statements like this suggests we know this happens, but maybe we dont know. Who has observed or been to a gas giant planet to see this happening ? No-one has.

Eaol, In other threads you are encouraging us to be more scientific in our approach, but I have seen nothing that is scientific in your presentation of this Electrical Universe theory apart from evidence of experiments done on Earth and similarities on Mars. Yes, I agree, that it does look as if these features are caused by electrical blasts, but we dont know and we have no on-planet current evidence of these blasts happening.

Surely, for this hypothesis to have any basis, you have to offer more current evidence than you have so far?

The fact that craters like those seen on most solar system bodies are not in any way useful as a measure of age, it should be acknowledged that no matter how cratered our Moon is, or how cratered Mars is, it has nothing to do with how long those craters have existed.

Most electrical craters form during the formation of a rocky body through equatorial ejection from a gas giant planet.

Planetary scientists have long assumed that most craters in the solar system are due to impact. But laboratory experiments reveal that electrical discharge can replicate observed cratering patterns in surprising ways.

How do you make a crater? Scientists have been asking that question ever since Galileo turned his telescope on the moon in 1610. The discussion was between those who thought craters were made by volcanoes and those who thought craters were made by impacts. In the late 20th century, geologists on Earth and astronauts on the moon showed that they weren't volcanic. The impact hypothesis won by default.

But there is a third possibility, one that has now been explored in detail by advocates of the "electric universe." The craters in the photo above were made in a laboratory by electric discharge. This cratered surface duplicates many characteristics of planetary geology. The craters tend to clump according to size, to fall in lines and arcs. Notice also that the ground appears burnt or discolored where the discharge was strongest and the craters the densest-not unlike the surface of Mars and other rocky bodies in the solar system. The centers of some of the craters have bumps, as do many enigmatic craters on the Moon, Mars, and other surfaces. Also of interest are the dark streaks from two larger craters close to the center of the picture, a pattern similar to the "wind"-streaked craters found on Mars.

This third possibility was first voiced in the 1960's. But astronomers have had little interest in such lines of investigation because they have long assumed that electric forces cannot reach across the vacuum of space. However, numerous space age findings have contradicted that belief. From the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts in 1958 to the latest discoveries of galactic magnetic fields and x-ray galactic clusters, it has become increasingly clear that charged particles fill what once was called the "void" of space. Electrical activity is pervasive across both interplanetary and interstellar space.

Is it possible that our solar system was once more active electrically than it is today? When electric sparks strike a solid surface, they can produce not only craters but many other common geological features as well. Experimental research on the electrical etching of rocky surfaces must therefore be a priority. According to the electrical theorists, most of the large-scale geological features in our solar system can only be generated by electric arcs. And if this is true, then the actual history of our solar system bears little or no resemblance to textbook descriptions.